If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

What happens if Obama is not reelected and the new president favors an approach more along the lines of capitalism do we drop the socialism? Do we still have a 3 trillion debt

Richard
I think the debt is here to stay during my life time. Things will probably just get further and further away from the way it was way back when.

Socialism is here to stay,,,,, in part anyway.
It got worse and worse when the Bush administration and its republican majority was in power.
I can only see one way to go back to the good ole days. And that aint gonna happen in my life time either

Socialism is here to stay,,,,, in part anyway.
It got worse and worse when the Bush administration and its republican majority was in power.
I can only see one way to go back to the good ole days. And that aint gonna happen in my life time either

As for me I'll always be content,,no matter what happens.

Pete

As long as I can buy the essentials ...I may not like our current situation but I will try to be content. mumble, mumble, grin.

cave canem...beware of the dog
Richard Halstead (halst001 at yahoo.com)

Yeah but you don;t see a lot of gays in the rep party, at least not openly....in the mens room maybe, but not out in the open

Maybe most gays are Democrats.
But people who are anti-gays are also Democrats.

The largest voting block in the Democratic party (blacks) are very much anti-gay.
That is way the gay marriage initiative in CA got hammered last election.
The black demographic turned out en masse to vote for Obama.
As a result the also voted against the gay marriage amendment.

Probably most Republicans voted against it as well, but the black vote sealed it's fate.

Ronald Reagan and Maggie Thatcher are actually classified by political scientists as neo-liberal.

Right. And political scientists would classify all of the PAF's newly-minted libertarians (very limited govt., no welfare state, etc.) as classical liberals. Those are indeed interesting fun facts...along with a donkey's eyes are positioned so that he can see all four feet simultaneously, and the king of hearts is the only one with a moustache...neat factoids, but little practical application to this discussion (or anything else, really).

Personally, I'm a real Conservative and I don't care what other people do with thier lives as long as it doesn't infringe on my Constitutional Rights! They can call it whatever they want to; gay marriage/union, homo-binding, gay/lesbian merger, whatever...why should I care?

I yearn for the pre-RR (Read Religious Right or Ronald Reagan) Republican Party that believed in balanced budgets, conservation, defense, and having the government stay out of personal lives. That's a party that would occasionally even attract me to voting Republican. Now it seems that the only one of these priorities left is defense. Everything else is about sticking government's nose further up the rear ends of the populace.

Originally Posted by Marvin S

U R putting me on, in your own way.

When I was in the service I was stationed at Hdqtrs SAC. As a young buck I was out & about, Omaha is only 2nd to Denver (at the time) for interesting female companionship. But there was a darker side to that fair little midwestern city.

Omaha at the time was on the entertainment circuit - Chicago, Omaha, Denver & on to Vegas - many of the entertainers still rode trains so these were convenient stops. The Blackstone hotel with it's great lounge was about 3 blocks up the street from Mutual of Omaha Headquarters & their hordes of good looking file clerks. They regularly hosted entertainers of the caliber of Nat "King" Cole. So we spent a lot of time in their lounge. A male could not go to the head without being accosted by these people you say are not "predators". Fortunately I had a friend who liked to chase the skirts as much as I did, so had someone to cover my back. The cops in Omaha wouldn't even listen to one of them if you popped them, which we did regularly. Fortunately my friend was HM for Little All American FB with enough skill to play on our Base Basketball team so he was a handy guy in a brawl.

& I would note the queers (as we called them) were all over the city.
....

Is it predatory when a guy whistles at a beautiful (or even not beautiful) woman walking by, or when a guy approaches a young woman in a bar to offer a drink? When it is pushed too far, or the person refuses to take no for an answer, it is. Otherwise, it's just dating.

Originally Posted by badbullgator

Yeah but you don;t see a lot of gays in the rep party, at least not openly....in the mens room maybe, but not out in the open

You've obviously never heard of the Log Cabin Republicans -- the GOP's own openly gay lobby.

Originally Posted by Pete

Mentally speaking there is a fine line between homexuallity and liberalism.

....

Pete,

This may the quote for the day (and I'm assuming it's a joke). I guess an equally insightful comment would be that there's a fine line between a conservative and a wife beater.

I suspect that the percentages of gay conservatives and gay liberals are about equal. I suspect that the percentage of gay football players and wrestlers may even be a little above average for the population.

Battle priorities? If the courts interfere and redefine the definition of acceptable marriage guess what happens ... we have yet another protected class of citizens. Except this time it is based on behavior and not race or ethnicity. ..what a precedent to set in an already morally out of whack generation.

They will receive the same cultural and political considerations that blacks and other minorities (deservedly) enjoy. Their lifestyle and sexual preferences will be taught to your kids in schools like it is no big deal and perfectly natural, if you did go to church , like as has already happened in Norway, your pastor could face indictment for hate speech for simply preaching about sexual morality.

If you want to teach the children in your family that...thats fine. I do not want to be forced to accept a lifestyle .. a destructive one at that, for my family. And if I did not have a family of my own, I would certainly not tell someone else what they did and did not have to accept.

No one is telling homosexuals that they cannot live anyway they please. I simply oppose their lifestyle being forced into the mainstream and touted like it was tantamount to saving the rain forest.

Battle priorities? The liberals have already figured out that to change a culture you start with it's children in the schools. That is exactly what has already happened. And what is happening. I could care less if they loot wall street our country has not always been prosperous, we can make the money back. What has been looted has been our decency and willingness to stand for what is right and good. Nobody has the drive or the guts to think for themselves for fear of what evryone else will think about them, like that someone else even cares anyway.

I am aware that some think that conservatives would do better politically if they would back down on a couple of culturally sensitive issues, in psychological terms it is called sycophancy.

I never said back down…it battle you kill what is immediate threat then the next. The gooberment isn’t turning out gay people it is parents so your kids are within your control…move them to a private school...I wouldnt have a kid in public schools now days.

This may the quote for the day (and I'm assuming it's a joke). I guess an equally insightful comment would be that there's a fine line between a conservative and a wife beater.

I suspect that the percentages of gay conservatives and gay liberals are about equal. I suspect that the percentage of gay football players and wrestlers may even be a little above average for the population

Jeff
You know for a joke to be funny there has to be some trueth in it.

My meaning of what I said is that both Homosexuals and Liberals are void of making proper judgement when it counts..
While it is true that on average a homo makes considerably more income than a hetero,,,their life choices are generally destructive to them or others.
They both think hand in hand.( no pun there ) Often the only real difference is one is gay and the other straight.

I would imagine that most conservatives treat their wife really well. And tend to be the head of the household. My wife is the brains of our relationship and I pump her for info. (no pun there) but the final desision belongs to me. Because its my responsability if somethings not right. I take the blame for all that goes on around here.

Libs and gays are never responsible for their decisions. Its always someone elses fault.

So see Jeff ,,,thyere is alot in common. However not all Liberals are that way and not all consevatives are the other way either.

Pete,
"Generally speaking" you took a pretty civil and interesting discussion of a current political issue and made a disgustingly sexual post and several that were simply idiotic. But thanks to the rest of you for posting your opinions. It's certainly interesting to hear how others view this.

Matt McKenzie

"Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is probably the reason why so few engage in it." Henry Ford